Posts Tagged ‘George Soros’

Funny how Marxists don’t recognize your unalienable right to keep the fruits of your labor (especially if you happen to be more successful than they think you should be), but they claim that they have a “right” to demand free goodies at the expense of others.

Speaking outside on a sunny day, Harris-Perry says in an ad that aired Wednesday morning:

Americans will always want some level of inequality, because it’s a representation of meritocracy. People who work hard and sacrifice and save their money and make major contributions — we think that they should earn a little more. They should have more resources, and that’s fine. But we also, however, have to have a floor under which nobody falls. And if you’re below that — especially if you’re a child and you’re below that — we are not going to accept that. You do have the the right to health care, and to education, and to decent housing and to quality food at all times. ​[Emphasis added]

When something is a “right” (your life or conscience, for instance), it means you don’t have to do anything to earn it. You get to have it just for existing. It’s a gift from your Creator.

When you describe goods and services like food and housing as “rights,” you are saying that the people who produce these goods and services are obligated to provide them for you, whether you pay for them or not. There’s a word for this: slavery. Only slaves are forced to produce for others without compensation. TRUE rights come from God, and are unalienable. They cannot be provided by others, who could just as easily take them away.

You have an unalienable right to work and trade for goods and services. You do NOT have a “right” to demand them free of charge from others.

North Carolina’s newly elected Republican governor Pat McCrory hasn’t been in office for even two months, and already progressive groups and their allies within North Carolina’s state Democratic party have the long knives out. That is, if a leaked memo from the progressive organization Blueprint North Carolina is to be believed. The controversial memo was first reported on by theCharlotte Observer this past Friday. The Observer reported:

A group that sent out a memo with tips on how to attack Gov. Pat McCrory and other Republican leaders exercised “bad judgment” that could jeopardize its funding, the director of a foundation that finances the group said Friday.[…]

The memo was forwarded by Stephanie Bass, then Bluprint’s communications director, to the group’s nonprofit allies. The Observer obtained a copy.

Describing the control Republicans hold on North Carolina state government, it gave progressives a list of recommendations. Among them:

Those were among the talking points and action steps in a memo forwarded by Blueprint North Carolina, a partnership of advocacy and policy groups based in Raleigh.

The memo was emailed to groups last week with a warning: “It is CONFIDENTIAL to Blueprint, so please be careful – share with your boards and appropriate staff but not the whole world.”

[…] Republican officials have blasted progressives for their hypocrisy in attacking conservative organizations (like the North Carolina based Civitas Institute) for their close proximity to power, when progressive groups like Blueprint NC are (according to them) literally putting words in the mouths of Democratic leadership. They point (among other things) to certain poll-tested phrases in the memo, which they argue track (in some cases verbatim) with phrases from the actual Democratic response to Governor McCrory’s state-of-the-State address, delivered by State Rep. Larry Hall of Durham this month.

A George Soros-tied nonprofit that is reportedly linked to a memo that proposed using private investigators and other tough political-opposition tactics to “eviscerate” North Carolina Republican leaders now faces losing nearly half its funding, after the plans were uncovered last week.

[…] The group is running into trouble in the wake of the reports. The North Carolina GOP has reportedly filed two complaints against the organization.

And the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, which provided $425,000 of Blueprint North Carolina’s $1 million, says it is consulting with a lawyer on how to move forward. Foundation Executive Director Leslie Winner said she’s not sure whether Blueprint violated its tax-exempt status by getting involved in partisan politics. But the group at the very least exercised “bad judgment,” she said, according to The Charlotte Observer.

This idea of a second bill of “rights” that government should provide (food, housing, health care, etc.) goes back to FDR. Problem is, TRUE rights come from GOD, not government. Government’s job is merely to protect them (life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech,etc.).

Any “right” that is granted by government can just as easily be taken away by government. Not only that, but it is done so at the expense of someone else who’s REAL rights are being violated so you can be give the “right” to something you haven’t earned.

Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.

[…] Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.

Labor unions and Hollywood donors are open to bankrolling Organizing for Action, the outside group that has been formed in support of President Obama’s second-term agenda.

Traditionally one of the biggest donors to Democrats, unions are considering putting their financial weight behind the group as it tries to harness the grassroots power of Obama’s reelection machine.

[…] Organizing for Action will reportedly have access to the voter database that helped the president win the White House again in his more than $1 billion reelection bid. Jon Carson, who worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement, is the group’s executive director.

To the dismay of campaign finance reformers, Organizing for Action will operate as a 501(c)(4), a tax-exempt vehicle that was used during the 2012 campaign to evade donor disclosure while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign ads.

This is so predictable, and it reveals exactly what philosophy and tactics this “community organizing” apparatus will operate by. When Soros gets involved, nothing good can come of it. I’m only surprised he’s is allowing his involvement to be known publicly.

While Republicans contemplate how to improve their party’s political performance at the Republican National Committee (RNC) winter meeting, which opens today, Democrats are already taking politics to a new level, creating parallel organizations to advocate for President Barack Obama’s agenda and using their political clout to rearrange private business relationships to their liking. American politics has never seen anything like it.

Politico reports today that major donors–including billionaire George Soros (above), bailout beneficiary Citi and others–were approached by Obama campaign veterans to donate millions to Organizing for America, the president’s new 501(c)4 non-profit advocacy group. Under the tax code, 501(c)4 groups do not have to disclose their donors–a provision, ironically, that President Obama spent years campaigning against.

They justify the contradiction by insisting their money is for “good government,”, while money raised by conservative groups is “poision,” according to Obama bundler Alan Solow, quoted by Politico. Still, the organizers maintain the pretense of involving small donors rather than highlighting the large checks that fund existing groups such as Media Matters and Center for American Progress to the tune of $60 million per year, combined.

In addition to Organizing for America, the left has already welcomed another new left-wing organization, the Democracy Initiative, which brings several activist and lobby groups together to agitate for their policy priorities. The Democracy Initiative builds on previous efforts, such as Health Care for America now, which worked with the Obama administration in 2009 to organize demonstrations in support of his heath reform law.

The U.N. plans to control the tool that tyrants fear most — technology that promotes free speech and intellectual freedom — by imposing a global tax in the name of fairness. Think of net neutrality on steroids.

Elections have consequences, and one consequence of President Obama’s re-election may be U.S. acquiescence to the administrative control of the Internet to the United Nations and journalist-jailing and Web-censoring regimes from Iran to Venezuela, complete with a global tax on its use.

The U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai from Dec. 3 to 14. U.N. member states, largely composed of Third World despots, will be meeting to update the ITU treaty arrangements for international communications.

The ITU last drafted a treaty on communications in 1988, before the dawn of the Internet as we know it, and many of the world’s thugs seek to restrict its freedoms by imposing on it a global tax. The Internet was then primarily a university network, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a mere 4 years old.

Today, the self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs. The Internet freely crosses international boundaries, making it difficult for governments to censor or to tax.

Regimes such as Russia and Iran also want an ITU rule letting them monitor Internet traffic routed through or to their countries, allowing them to eavesdrop or block access.

AN unfettered internet, free of political control and available to everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious proposal by a little known United Nations body.

Experts claim that Australians could see political and religious websites disappear if the Federal Government backs a plan to hand control over the internet to the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

A draft of the proposal, formulated in secret and only recently posted on the ITU website for public perusal, reveal that if accepted, the changes would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications – including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves.

It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.

Telecommunications ministers from 193 countries will meet behind closed doors in Dubai next month to discuss the proposal, with Australia’s Senator Stephen Conroy among them.

The move has sparked a ferocious, under-the-radar diplomatic war between a powerful bloc of nations, led by China and Russia, who want to exert greater controls on the net and western democracies determined to preserve the free-wheeling, open architecture of the World Wide Web.

Secret negotiations involving dozens of countries preparing for a United Nations summit on international telecommunications could lead to changes in a global treaty that would diminish the Internet’s role in economic growth and restrict the free flow of information.

The U.S. delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications to be held in Dubai in December has vowed to block any proposals from Russia and other countries that they believe threaten the Internet’s current governing structure or give tacit approval to online censorship.

But those assurances have failed to ease fears that bureaucratic tinkering with the treaty could damage the world’s most powerful engine for exchanging information, creating jobs and even launching revolutions, according to legal experts and civil liberties advocates who have been tracking the discussions. Social networks played a key role in the Arab Spring uprisings that last year upended regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.

Russia, for example, has proposed language that requires member states to ensure the public has unrestricted access and use of international telecommunication services “except in cases where international telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other states, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature,” according to a May 3 U.N. document that details the various proposals for amending the treaty.

The wording of this provision could allow a country to repress political opposition while citing a U.N. treaty as the basis for doing so. The provision also appears to contradict Article 19 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says people shall have the right to access information “through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

An amended treaty would be binding on the United States if it is ratified by the Senate.

“In response to an inquiry from the Free Beacon, a Justice Department spokeswoman said in an email that she ‘was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story…’ The link was to a story at the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America….”

[…] By making hyper partisan Media Matters an all-but-official part of its PR department, Barack Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that any facade at fairness on its part is as false as those Grecian columns Obama used in Denver four years ago.

Conservatives have known this for years, but Media Matters is NOT a non-partisan “fact checker.” It is a Soros-funded attack dog dedicated to discrediting conservative individuals, groups and media outlets that dare to speak out against the Left’s agenda.

An internal Media Matters For America memo obtained by The Daily Caller reveals that the left-wing media watchdog group employs an “opposition research team” to target its political enemies. Included in the list of targets are right-leaning websites, conservative think tanks, prominent financiers and donors, and more than a dozen specific Fox News Channel and News Corporation employees.

“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.”

Liberal media watchdog group Media Matters once contemplated harassing Fox News employees with yard signs in their neighborhoods, hiring private investigators to dig into their personal lives and retaining a “major law firm” to study legal action against the network, according to a report Tuesday in the Daily Caller.

…Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists. “In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.

Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC anchors and executives: “If we published something about Fox in the morning, they’d have it on the air that night verbatim.” […]

“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”

Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”

Most damning are the revelations about Obama’s partnership with Media Matters, which gave him unprecedented influence over the content of news reports regarding his administration, the Democrat party and the “progressive” agenda:

Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.

Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.

This latest exposé of Obama’s collaboration with the Lefitst propaganda machine is sure to bring up plenty of questions about how little he was vetted prior to 2008, and how much he is still hiding now.

If you’re looking for an alternative media watchdog, TruthOrFiction.com is a TRUE non-partisan urban legend fact checker. Newsbusters is also a great independent media watchdog resource which is unapologetically conservative and honest, and doesn’t collaborate with any political party.

George Soros built his fortune by taking advantage of crisis situations all over the world, some of which he even manufactured himself. When he makes a prediction, it’s because he’s essentially giving the green light to his minions, scaring his opponents and essentially telling the markets where to go. His comments after 9/11 helped send stocks into a tailspin a week after the fact.

He’s the force behind the Democrats’ “Shadow Party,” a network of Leftist organizations that do the dirty work behind the scenes to advance globalist socialism. Obama and Hillary Clinton both came out of this shadow network of Marxist radicals.

Soros is also a primary funder of “Occupy Wall Street,” so there’s no question in my mind that he’s funneling the cash to the most radical factions that are pushing for a Marxist revolution.

Billionaire George Soros is predicting protests by Occupy Wall Street will turn violent, while warning the U.S. financial system may collapse.

In an interview with Newsweek writer John Arlidge, Soros reportedly said riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable.

“‘Yes, yes, yes,’ he says, almost gleefully,” when asked about the prospect of Occupy turning violent, writes Arlidge.

Soros claimed the riots will “be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

“At times like these, survival is the most important thing,” Soros continued.

“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros said.

“We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse,” he said.

“The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”

This is a clear indication that Obama is counting on massive voter fraud to win in November, and he needs the Secretary of State in every battleground state to be in his camp so they won’t interfere.

Since the SOS is charged with enforcing (or choosing not to enforce) election laws, having a Democrat sympathetic to the Obama campaign in that office would almost guarantee no fraud prevention or investigation.

It’s not above Obama and his Chicago-trained thugs to resort to illegal tactics like this to bring down and replace a Republican Secretary of State who stands in their way.

Will the media follow the trail back to the DNC and the Obama campaign?

In a scandal reeking of electoral fraud, a Democrat-linked political hack was arrested Friday for identity theft in an apparent bid to defame and replace Iowa’s GOP secretary of state. How far up does this go?

Zachary Edwards, who served as President Obama’s Iowa “New Media Director,” and a campaign organizer in critical battleground states such as North Carolina and New Mexico during 2008’s elections, apparently has quite a range of uses to the Democratic Party.

One of those uses may include identity theft.

The 29-year-old’s arrest in Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday, for attempting to steal the identity of Matt Schultz, Iowa’s Republican secretary of state, points to dirty tricks as a potential element of the Democratic agenda for 2012. The big question is how far up it goes.

According to a criminal complaint released by the Iowa Department of Public Safety, “Edwards fraudulently used, or attempted to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz and/or Schultz’s brother, Thomas Schultz, to obtain a benefit, in an alleged scheme to falsely implicate Secretary Schultz in perceived illegal or unethical behavior while in office.”

Edwards worked for a consulting and opposition research operation with close ties to the Democrats, called Link Strategies. The firm has since fired him and claimed that his acts were unauthorized deeds of a lone wolf acting on his own.

But if one were to scroll back to 2006, the only response to that is: Not so fast.

The aim was to elect “progressive” secretaries of state in swing or battleground states so that when elections were tight, the decisive official in the secretary of state’s chair would presumably rule in Democrats’ favor. This worked like a charm in Minnesota, when the SOS Project managed to place Democrat Mark Ritchie in that office to rule in favor of Democrat Al Franken after hundreds of ballots were “found” in his close Senate race.

But it didn’t always work to plan. Iowa, which the Secretary of State Project lists as one of its most important battleground targets, saw its voters elect Schultz, a very conservative Republican, secretary of state in 2008.

Right after his election, Democrats got to work attempting to verbally discredit him, spreading stories on Democrat-linked blogs like Under The Golden Dome suggesting Schultz was using his office for partisan purposes.

The site ran a three-part series on that bogus theme almost immediately after Schultz took office.

It got worse when Iowa officials discovered that smears weren’t the only tactic Democrats were using — a tactic quite protected under freedom of speech.

Edwards came into the picture and was accused of literally stealing Schultz’s identity in a bid to spread defamatory facts about him and unseat the democratically elected official from office.

That smacks of political motives, comparable to Watergate. Did Edwards act alone? It seems unlikely, given what little personal benefit he’d gain for himself.

But with the presidency at stake, and Iowa a battleground, there’s a fairly strong likelihood that far bigger presences from the Democrats may be involved.

The fact that Soros and various other Democratic heavy hitters made it a priority to take over secretary of state offices suggests that larger forces may be at work.

If Democrats do not come clean on this, immediately, this could well mean that people are being protected. If they are, we are looking at some of the highest political crimes ever.

Stealing an election by toppling a secretary of state is fundamentally anti-democratic. A full investigation by a special prosecutor is in order.

If evidence is found of a conspiracy to defraud democracy, someone should go to jail for this, and we aren’t just talking about Edwards.

You will recall that ACORN and other Democratic satelites organized a campaign a couple of years back to install their allies in Secretary of State offices in as many key states as possible. Such officials are responsible for enforcing – or not enforcing – state election laws.

Being a Republican, Schultz represented an obstacle to the plan. Could that be why Edwards sought to, according to the Des Moines Register, falsify Schultz indentity in an effort to implicate him in a scandal that would result in his possible removal from office or defeat in the next election?

“So on its face, Edwards’s identity theft appears to be part of a coordinated effort by the Iowa Democratic Party to bring down the Republican Secretary of State so he can be replaced with a Democrat. We hope that Edwards will get the long jail term that he deserves, but the more important question is, from whom was he taking instructions? Circumstantially, one would guess from his boss, Jeff Link. But if so, who was instructing (and paying?) Link’s firm? The White House? Tom Harkin? Iowa’s Democratic Party?”

So here we have what looks like the potential beginning of a significant election campaign scandal and I am sure editors at the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and, especially, MSNBC and CNN are at this very moment lining up their top investigative reporters to dig into the story.

If you talk to some of the young idealists who have jumped on the “Occupy Wall Street” bandwagon, you may be tempted to think that they aren’t so different from the Tea Party, after all. I can sympathize with compassionate conservatives who want to reach out to these disillusioned kids and try and divert their energies towards more constructive, liberty-oriented solutions.

However, if these kids REALLY wanted the solutions the Tea Party offered, they had three years to hear our message and join us. Instead, they chose to jump on the Socialist bandwagon. That says something about where their hearts truly lie. Some may be open to conservative alternatives, but most have already made up their minds.

There’s a reason why Occupy Wall Street claims to be upset about bailouts, corruption, and burdensome taxation, THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT. They’re hoping to steal away the Tea Party’s key issues and channel that anger and energy towards advancing class warfare and their Marxist agenda.

Occupy Wall Street was NOT a “spontaneous” or “grassroots” movement. It was PLANNED FOR MONTHS IN ADVANCE by well-funded activist groups as the Leftist answer to the Tea Party.

Big Government had undercover journalists on their websites and e-mail lists who were tracking this for months before the “Day of Rage” in September, when it finally launched. The kids on the ground don’t have a clue about the train they’ve jumped on.

Obama and Ron Paul have tried to draw correlations between the two movements, and many within the Occupy camp have tried to convince Tea Partiers to “find common ground,” claiming “we’re upset about the same things.”

But that’s not necessarily true. The protesters who were REALLY upset about the bank bailouts joined the Tea Party three years ago.

The ones who waited for Occupy are those who want their OWN bailouts – read: GOVERNMENT FREEBIES. They want “redistribution”. They want to “soak the rich.” They want Socialism.

One of the hidden goals of Occupy is to try and siphon off Tea Partiers, to reduce our numbers, co-opt our manpower, steal our momentum and redirect it towards a Marxist agenda cloaked in patriotic populism.

Calls to unify with Occupy are misleading. Don’t get sucked in. Liberty cannot unify with tyranny.

Look at who’s pulling the strings, and you’ll understand the true agenda.

The fall protests were part of a strategy to inspire starry-eyed idealists into joining the “progressive” cause. Now begins phase two: training their new recruits in Alinskyite intimidation tactics behind the scenes, while the rest of the country believes the movement is largely dead.

This blog is a labor of love for you, the reader who loves this country and wants to stay informed of the threats to our liberty and how to make a difference. I receive no compensation for blogging and pay for web services out of our family budget. Would you consider making a small donation to help? Just like the fight for liberty, every little bit makes a difference!

Note: Please keep your comments respectful and relevant to the topic at hand. I will not approve ad hominem attacks or profanity. Nor will I approve comments by advertisers using their business or product and hyperlink as their username. This blog is not a forum for free advertising.